Talk:Shadow Broker Agent
?Human or Batarian? I had a thought after fighting Prison Guards on Arrival. Those batarians are suited up the same kind of way as other, human troopers in the game, including SB Agents. Now, SB Agents have the same, deep voices as typical batarian characters, so how do we know they're really human? They may all be batarian, or some could be batarians and others just deep-voiced humans. Or they might all be deep-voiced humans. I suggest we label their race as "Human/batarian". Tali's no.1 fan 17:04, March 31, 2011 (UTC) :Opinions? Tali's no.1 fan 18:02, April 1, 2011 (UTC) ::That's probably for the best. We can't tell if these are only humans or batarians under the helmets, so it's plausible that both races were used in the Broker's forces. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:11, April 1, 2011 (UTC) :::Yeah I'm going to have to say no however for a few reasons. First and foremost, it sets a precedent for this in the fact that there are several other mercs that are dressed like this as well, and we don't have batarian listed for any of those, and more than likely they aren't batarian given we see batarians in some of those forces. Second, it is really just speculation based on a voice comparison, and that is unreliable to say the last. Honestly there just isn't enough at the moment to change the article based on an unreliable voice comparsion, and "they all dress alike so they must be the same species". That is just speculation right there. So I'm going to say no. Lancer1289 18:23, April 1, 2011 (UTC) ::::But how do we know they're all human? We may have no definitive proof these guys are both humans and batarians, but we also have no proof that they're 100% one race or the other. It's entirely possible that the Broker has some batarians in his private army, and this should be pointed out in the article. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:28, April 1, 2011 (UTC) :::::Exactly what I was about to say. Tali's no.1 fan 18:33, April 1, 2011 (UTC) ::::::(edit conflict)Then I should point out that this is entirely based on a voice comparison and the fact that they all dress alike. Visual and voice comparison, unreliable in every article here. I hear similar things from other troops, yet we don't not it on their page, because of the simple fact that it based on voice comparison, which is again unreliable. In every article, basing something on a voice comparison is grounds for removal, and this is exactly what this is. Maybe that particular type of helmet is effective for humans and batarians, but either way the entire thing is based on speculation and the precedent is also something that needs to be considered. Lancer1289 18:35, April 1, 2011 (UTC) So what would be more reliable than visual and voice comparison? Tali's no.1 fan 18:41, April 1, 2011 (UTC) :Some proof from devs or something that puts it beyond a reasonable doubt. The precedent this would set is a very dangerous one. We allowed a change to an article based on a voice and/or visual comparison. This could lead to problems down the road when people want to justify a voice or visual comparison and they can point to this and say "Well you allowed it there, so you have to allow it here as well". Visual and voice comparisons are subject to subject bias, experience, personal opinions, etc. I hope you can you see where this is going. Lancer1289 18:46, April 1, 2011 (UTC) Isn't it speculation to say SBAs are only humans, though? We can't see under the helmets, we can't be certain. I think at the very least we should leave this part of the template blank. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:53, April 1, 2011 (UTC) :It is the change to Human/Batarian that is more of the concern here, but you are cutting a double edged blade here, and one that also one that will do more than you think it would. If we leave this blank, then we have to remove human from other enemy pages, starting will all the heavies, and continuing from there. After all isn't that speculation as well? That is something I'm not comfortable with what so ever. This is a tricky situation because this article wanted to be changed based on sources that were determined to be unreliable and dismissed in every circumstance where they have come up. However, we know humans are in a lot of merc bands, and in this case, putting human is reasonable. On the other hand, changing it to Human/Batarian based on what I stated earlier sets a dangerous precedent and opens the door to a lot more. Leaving it blank also sets another precedent, and one that has less support and a lot more impact. Honestly, leaving the article as is doesn't change the status quo, and avoid setting a more dangerous one that will impact a lot of templates and a lot of articles. Lancer1289 19:06, April 1, 2011 (UTC) ::If that's how it has to be. I still think even without the voice comparison (which I wasn't basing my support on anyway), the visual comparison is enough. Armor designed for humans and armor designed for batarians is indistinguishable. Furthermore, we know the Broker has been operating since before the First Contact War; whoever his Agents were then, they couldn't have been human. It's not logical to assume that as soon as humans came on the scene, he no longer hired any batarians at all. Saying that SBAs could be human and/or batarian isn't speculation, it's a valid possibility we can't rule out and should acknowledge. Clarification: I'm not continuing this argument per se, but I am setting down my position on the matter. I'm letting this go for the time being. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:13, April 1, 2011 (UTC) :::Except right there, "I still think even without the voice comparison (which I wasn't basing my support on anyway), the visual comparison is enough", it isn't. You are using a visual comparison to justify a change/inclusion of information, which you are basing your support on, at least partly, and there isn't enough other support to justify it. While we do know the Broker has been operating for centuries, what we don't know is how long Agents like this have been used, or even how long batarians have been used/not used. On top of that, we don't even know that the Shadow Broker hired batarians to being with don't forget. I should also point out that if Arival didn't come out, then this would have never happened, and while that may not seem relevant, it actually is. The armor you are describing may have been adopted by the batarians after the fact, given how they saw how useful/practical/durable/anything else, and we do have proof that the helmet design is used for humans more than batarians before 2185. Also just to throw this out, armor designed for humans and asari is also indistinguishable in some cases. Lancer1289 19:42, April 1, 2011 (UTC) ::::I think I understand where you're coming from. For all we know heavies could be asari or human, and human and asari voices are the same. Could we at least acknowlege somewhere in the article that SBA voices may indicate that they are batarians but we can only speculate? Tali's no.1 fan 16:45, April 2, 2011 (UTC) :::::Yeah that is still speucaltion. If you have to put "but we can only speculate" to try get something into an article, then you should probably stop there. as that is just pure specualtion right here. Lancer1289 17:39, April 2, 2011 (UTC) If I may chip in a few cents: Presumably, the reason these enemies were labeled as humans before, despite the deep voice that was typically characteristic of a batarian, was because they wore armor typically only seen on humans, with two small eye-holes. Prior to Arrival, the only batarians seen with helmets on wore the type of helmet as seen on the Blue Suns Pyro. They and Sergeant Cathka were the only helmeted batarians in the game (to my knowledge). It was logical at the time to assume that these enemies were human then: Why would a batarian wear a helmet with only two eye holes? The release of Arrival has demonstrated that this is a faulty assumption. Batarian prison guards are clearly wearing helmets that only have holes for two eyes. We can therefore conclude that these enemies could be batarians (with no 'unnatural' voice modifications) or humans with some sort of voice modification scheme in the helmet. We know that the Shadow Broker used voice modification software, so it's still possible that they could be human (but the salarian and asari troopers didn't get that particular modification for whatever reason. Maybe they're lower in the pecking order? :)) I therefore argue for the inclusion of 'batarian' as part of the race parameter. By excluding it, we're saying with certainty that they cannot be batarians. With the release of Arrival, BioWare has shown us that batarians can wear helmets with only two eye holes. This is, to my knowledge, the only reason they were not called batarian in the first place. I'll also point out the impossibility of these enemies being asari: They're all wearing male armor. -- Dammej (talk) 17:27, April 2, 2011 (UTC) :First you missed my point about other enemies entirely. I was demonstrating that this entire thing sets a very bad, and dangerous precedent. Heavies could also be asari, yet it isn't mentioned is it? I'm still going to say a flat out no because of the reasons I have stated already and the primary reason why this change will be done. See my statements above for other reasons. Lancer1289 17:39, April 2, 2011 (UTC) ::It sets a precedent, certainly. But I wouldn't call it 'bad' or 'dangerous'. Quite the opposite: by including all the possibilities, we remove some speculation, stated or unstated, from the article. I have no argument against calling heavies asari: If they're wearing a helmet and they're female, we can't tell! We could only further narrow it down by looking at the history of an organization: If they can't/won't hire asari or some other race, then it's obvious that they won't be using that race in combat. With the shadow broker, we have zero history to narrow it down. The only other way we could narrow it down is by looking for other characteristics of a race. In the case of batarians, they have much lower voices than the human enemies of the game. So if it looks like a batarian and sounds like a batarian, I don't see the problem with calling it a batarian. -- Dammej (talk) 17:49, April 2, 2011 (UTC) ::So we remove speculation by adding it? That doesn't make much sense. We would be adding a lot more speculation than we would be removing, except this time around it would be up front, and very visible. I still have reasons for saying no for the reasons I have iterated above about why the change is being warranted. I.e. "if it looks like a batarian and sounds like a batarian", that has been used before and dismissed as speculation. Lancer1289 18:56, April 2, 2011 (UTC) :::I had no idea a discussion I'd started would carry on for so long. Not counting myself, we now have 2 users in favour of changes and 1 not in favour. Good points have been made for both cases. Tali's no.1 fan 19:00, April 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::I'm sorry, but concluding that an enemy is a batarian because he both looks and sounds like a batarian is not speculation. It's deductive reasoning, dare I say common sense. I'm concluding that they could be batarians based on a logical conclusion from the evidence presented to me. You're dismissing the possibility based on... what ifs. It's not very compelling. -- Dammej (talk) 19:07, April 2, 2011 (UTC) :::::No I'm dismissing a change based on a vocal comparison, which under every circumstance here has been dismissed. Also your reasoning has been dismissed every time as well. IF we allow a vocal comparison here, then it does open the door as it sets a precedent that we allowed here a change based on something that we had previously not allowed. Therefore, there is a lot that needs to be considered here, and frankly you saying that we should allow a change based on a vocal comparison, sets a precedent to allow information into articles that are also based on that. And do I really need to say again how unreliable vocal comparisons are? Also deductive reasoning has been dismissed every time as well. Common sense is an opinionated statement to begin with. Lancer1289 19:13, April 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Okay, here's what I have to say on the matter. I'm in favor of listing them as "Unknown (human/batarian)". With the new info from Arrival, it is just as much speculation to say these guys are human as it is to say they are batarian. I honestly think they may be batarians, what with the deeper voices and all, but that is speculation, and is thus unacceptable. We also cannot definitively say they are human, because they have batarian voices. Also, we know now that both races use that type of armor, so that further complicates the matter. We can't allow speculation, so we should list them as unknown, as we don't know for sure what race they are. Arbington 21:24, April 2, 2011 (UTC) :::::::(edit conflict)I still have problems with that as it also sets a precedent, though a less dangerous one of as this would just have to say "Unknown". However, the main problem I have is the thing justifying this is mainly a vocal comparison and armor that in all honestly we don't know how common it is, or when the batarians adopted it. The only way I will agree to this is saying "unknown" and nothing else. No "Human/Batarian", no "Unknown (human/batarian)", no "Batarian/Human", nothing except "Unknown". I'm still very much in favor or just leaving it alone, but if and only if it comes down to it, I'll reluctantly agree to "Unknown". Putting anything else is justifying a change based on speculation, i.e. a voice comparison, and a visual comparison, which under any circumstance, wouldn't be enough. It's either "Unknown" or no change for reasons that I have stated multiple times over now, and are legitimate concerns about the speculation policy. Lancer1289 22:03, April 2, 2011 (UTC) That's now 3 in favour of change - not counting myself - and 1 not in favour. If your wondering why I'm not counting myself, well, I like to stand on neutral ground. "Set patterns, incapable of adaptability, of pliability, only offer a better cage. Truth is outside of all patterns". Quoted from Bruce Lee's "Tao of Jeet Kune Do". Tali's no.1 fan 21:47, April 2, 2011 (UTC) :When you are using things that are against site policy to justify a change, can that really be right? See reasons I have already given on this subject, which you have yet to say anything about by the way. Lancer1289 22:03, April 2, 2011 (UTC) ::Are you talking to me? Tali's no.1 fan 22:06, April 2, 2011 (UTC) :::Well considering my comment is under yours, I'd have to say that I am talking to you. Lancer1289 22:12, April 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::How was I using anything against site policy to justify change? I was merely quoting to explain why I like being neutral. Tali's no.1 fan 22:15, April 2, 2011 (UTC) :::::Your original point of justifying a change to this article using an unreliable, and unacceptable, voice comparison. Lancer1289 22:19, April 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Are you having a go at me for starting this discussion? I believed it was a reasonable thing to start a discussion that SBAs may be batarian due to their voices. Tali's no.1 fan 22:25, April 2, 2011 (UTC) :::::::No. I'm merely making a point that you were trying to justify a change to this article using something that isn't allowed. Vocal comparisons are not enough to justify a change as it is an unreliable and subjective comparison affected by I don't know how many factors. Vocal comparisons have been dismissed every single time they have come up because someone saying "this sounds like this so it must be true", is an opinion and subjective to say the least. Or something along those lines. Lancer1289 22:32, April 2, 2011 (UTC) I was not trying to justify a change. I was asking for opinions on one. Tali's no.1 fan 22:35, April 2, 2011 (UTC) :"I suggest we label their race as "Human/batarian". That is asking people to a change that is based on a vocal comparison. You then bumped the conversation asking what people thought about making a change would have been justified using something that isn't allowed. Vocal comparisons are not a justification for making a change, or including information, due to a number of factors: bias (subject), personal opinions, quality of equipment, biological factors, etc. Lancer1289 22:46, April 2, 2011 (UTC) ::Did I do some illegal by asking what people thought about such a change? I thought that was what Talk Pages were for. Tali's no.1 fan 22:51, April 2, 2011 (UTC) :::No you were correct in the question, seeking to make a change, I don't want you to get the wrong idea on that front. Talk pages are supposed to be used for topics like this: improvements to the related article, changes to the related article, explaining an edit that was too big for the edit summary, drawing attention to why an edit was made, and things like that. However, it was the question itself, asking to change an article based on a vocal comparison that was the problem. Changes to an article are again something talk pages are supposed to be used for, however seeking to change something in the article based on vocal comparison was the problem part for reasons I have stated about why a vocal comparison is unreliable. Now if you will excuse me, I must go to Church. Lancer1289 23:01, April 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::And I must go to bed, it's past midnight in the UK. Tali's no.1 fan 23:06, April 2, 2011 (UTC) Just my two cents, what color do batarians bleed? Could we distinguish them that way?Arbiter099 04:44, April 3, 2011 (UTC) :Unfortunately, batarians bleed the same colour as humans, so we can't distinguish them that way. And anyway, blood would also be unreliable evidence as there are instances in-game where enemies makes bleed the wrong colour. Shredder Ammo has blood as its special "impact effect" and I think it sometimes makes non-red blooded enemies bleed red. Although I'm not sure there. I do think sometimes shooting dead enemies produces red blood regardless of race, but again, I'm not sure. The instance I'm thinking of might have been a one-time glitch. Anyway, I've gotten off topic now. No, we can't distinguish humans from batarians using their blood colour and even if we could it wouldn't be reliable. Tali's no.1 fan 16:18, April 3, 2011 (UTC) I've just taken a look at the Eclipse Heavy article and they are in fact listed as "human or asari". Which renders Lancer's argument that this "sets a precedent" fairly redundant. So are we going to change this article or the Eclipse article based on that? Tali's no.1 fan 14:20, June 12, 2011 (UTC) : Just to throw my (anonymous) two cents in, I've gotta agree with Tali here. Shadow Broker Heavies are listed as "human or asari", after all, along with the Eclipse Heavies Tali mentioned above. And after checking through several other pages about various types of mercs, I've found some that list "human or batarian" for humanoid mercs with helments. So it appears there's plenty of precedent. And leaving it as "humans" implies we know for sure they're all human (which we clearly do not, and would never know unless devs specifically said "the Shadow Broker Agents are all humans" or something), whereas putting it as "Human or Batarian" would make it more clear that we aren't really sure, but they're probably either human or batarian. 23:44, January 2, 2012 (UTC)